KUMUDINI PRADHAN,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), CUTTACK, CUTTACK

ITA 651/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 August 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication. The assessee is directed to file a reply, and the CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte as the assessee failed to produce necessary documents. The assessee claimed they did not receive the notices and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and whether additional evidence should be admitted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Hearing: 18/08/2026Pronounced: 18/08/2026

Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi (the ‘CIT(A)’) in appeal no.NFAC/2017- 18/10265358 dated 16/03/2026 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Shri P. R. Mohanty, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Arnab Mukherjee, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

A perusal of the facts in the present appeal shows that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and the assessee failed to produce details/documents before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has prayed that another oppo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →